Conclusion: Word and Image

Abstract

The history of Romeo and Juliet, both in performance and as a text for critical scrutiny, has inevitably been dominated by the eponymous heroes. However, this has almost certainly had some serious consequences which may well have distorted our perception of the play. To some extent the difficulties faced by modern audiences may be attributed to the inevitable changes in theatrical taste which affect any of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, in his New Penguin edition of the play, T. J. B. Spencer suggests two such serious consequences: first, our difficulty in understanding some of Mercutio’s complex puns tends to ‘soften’ his impact in modern performance; moreover, the Friar’s moralizing is ‘rendered weaker than Shakespeare’s text authorizes’ (p. 8). In fact it is probably true that much of what has often been taken as simply the background to the lovers has been undervalued, so that we are tempted to concentrate our attention upon questions centred upon the lovers’ rashness while ignoring the importance of the self-perpetuation of violence as well as the lovers’ role in its final exorcism. Simon Trussler reminds us that the modern tendency to read the play through the filter of a pre-determined definition of tragedy which focuses exclusively upon the lovers’ flaws can result in disastrous interpretations:

What a grievous symptom of the working assumptions of our society that the one character in the play who achieves, for all its brevity, a happy and mutually fulfilled sexual relationship, the one character [Romeo] who, however disastrous the consequences, actually tries to step between violent antagonists, should be regarded as immoderate! (Programme/Playtext to 1988 RSC production)